Communist Instrument for World Conquest
by Eric D. Butler
The old saying that truth is stranger than fiction, is strikingly confirmed by a study of the dynamic strategy and tactics by which the Communists have made giant strides towards their ultimate objective of complete World Conquest. And yet in spite of the disastrous retreats by the non-Communists in the face of the Communist offensive, even now there is only a handful of people outside the ranks of the Communists who have any real understanding of the Communist faith, Dialectical Materialism, or how the use of the "law" of dialectics has been a major factor in enabling the Communists to defeat their opponents time and time again.
Although the Western world is depicted as representing
a Civilization based upon spiritual values fighting for survival
against a Communist challenge based on materialism, the truth is
that various forms of materialism have so affected the peoples of
the Western world that they are incapable of understanding that Communism
is the policy of a certain philosophy, that which the Communists
call dialectical materialism.
Over the recorded history of man there have been many attempts by some men to obtain complete power over all other men. But for the first time man is faced with a challenge by a power-seeking movement which claims that it is based upon a philosophy which can be used to demonstrate "scientifically" that murder, lying, deceit and stealing are but an aspect of Truth.
According to the Communist philosophy of dialectical
materialism, anything which advances Communism is therefore true.
Because very few Western politicians have taken
the trouble to understand dialectics, most of them have been easily
tricked on numerous occasions by what they thought was a Communist
The essence of the philosophy of dialectical
materialism, is that all development and progress, in human society
and in nature, stems from conflict. Class warfare, for example, is
inevitable and an essential part of the progress towards Communism.
Most of those who attempt to deal with Communism make the major mistake of overlooking that the fully-conditioned Communist is a completely different type of human being. He thinks differently from all other human beings. Rational discussion is impossible with an individual who not only believes that under certain circumstances murder is necessary, but that it is "scientifically" justified. Confronted by human beings who have been conditioned to the point where they think and act dialectically, Western man faces something he has never before had to face in his struggle against those who challenged his civilization.
The Communist is not going to be halted by any
appeals to reason. He, in fact, cannot be reached through the thought
processes of Western man. No non-Communist can possibly reach the
thoroughly conditioned and dedicated Communist unless he can challenge
and expose his philosophy of dialectical materialism. But only in
a comparatively few cases has this been possible. Those who want
to defeat Communism must therefore face the truth that Communism
poses two clear-cut alternatives: the non-Communist must either be
victorious or be defeated.
Whittaker Chambers, the former top Communist agent who become famous for his exposure of Alger Hiss, stated that very few of those who become Communists do so because they have read any Marxian economics. Men become Communists for a variety of reasons, many because of what is termed the "crisis of history". They accept the Communist claim that Marx gave man a new revelation of how the crisis was to be resolved. The Communist Party becomes the repository of this revelation, and therefore everything which advances the Communist Party is "moral". Whether or not individuals accept this revelation as an article of genuine faith, or whether they are criminals who see in dialectics the most formidable weapon yet devised by the mind of man to conquer all other men and to achieve complete power, there can be no argument that dialectics provide a most flexible instrument for conquering non-Communists.
If the non-Communist mind can grasp that to the Communist the only absolute reality is the inevitability of the Communist victory, and that everything which advances that victory is moral and justified, it will have taken a big step forward towards understanding the nature of the problem confronting the non-Communist world.
The purpose of this booklet is to provide an elementary, non-technical outline of the significance of dialectics as taught and practised by the Communists. Although some may find the theoretical aspects of dialectics difficult to grasp completely at first reading, there should be no difficulty in seeing how the Communists think and act dialectically.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
Although it can be easily demonstrated that
Marx's philosophy of dialectical materialism is a monstrous fraud,
it is perhaps the only original concept for which Marx can be given
In The Communist Manifesto, Marx attacked
the "Utopian Socialists" because they "consistently endeavour to
suppress the class struggle and to reconcile antagonism".
Marx and his collaborator, Engels, claimed that,
even though the earlier socialists presented the magnet of a ''new
golden age'', they had failed to make any progress towards their
objective because they relied upon human intelligence and goodwill
to attain their ideals of the perfect society. Marx and Engels stated
that these earlier socialists failed because they had not understood
the laws of human society and history.
The philosophy of dialectical materialism propounded
by Marx, and his "scientific socialism", were clearly presented as
the means by which Communists could obtain political power. The Communist
claim is that as they discovered the laws governing all development,
then these laws become the custodians of the Communist Party, which
must use them to gain and to hold Communist power. Marx cannot be
regarded as a true philosopher, but as a Socialist and a materialist
seeking to present a philosophy which would make the development
of Communism appear to be "historically inevitable".
Hegel's philosophy dominated all Marx's subsequent thinking. He accepted Hegel's teaching that all progress comes from a never-ending conflict between opposing forces. But Hegel was not a materialist, but an idealist, who believed in the primacy of thought and ideas over matter. He therefore applied the dialectic primarily to the development of ideas. Marx had early become a materialist, but he was looking for an activating principle which would overcome the mechanistic concepts of other materialists.
When the Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung
in On Contradiction
"This defect of the old materialism is undeniable:
its failure to appreciate the relativity of all scientific theories,
its ignorance of dialectics, its exaggeration of the mechanical viewpoint."
When Ludwig Feuerbach published his work, Essence
of Christianity, in 1841, it made a profound impression upon
both Marx and his collaborator Engels. Although Marx was a materialist,
he could not at this time see any method of marrying Hegel's dialectic
method to materialism. But now Feuerbach "in many respects forms
an intermediate link between Hegelian philosophy and our conception."
A Decisive Development
Engels states in the Preface to Marx's Poverty
of Philosophy (New York, 1936, p. 7) that by 1846 "Marx had cleared
up for himself the basic features of his new historical and economic
It is not surprising that Marx was a man of violent hates, and that violence and revolution are the recurring theme in Communist teachings. Some of Marx's most biting comments were applied to "reformists" who believed that progress was possible without violence.
Marxist-Leninists are revolutionaries, as made
very clear in the following extract from The Program of The Communist
International, adopted by the Sixth World Congress, September
1, 1928, Moscow
"Advocating and propagating the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels and employing it as a revolutionary method of conceiving reality, with the view to the revolutionary transformation of this reality, the Communist International wages an active struggle against all forms of bourgeois philosophy and against all forms of theoretical and practical opportunism. Standing on the ground of consistent proletarian class struggle and subordinating the temporary, partial, group and national interests of the proletariat to its lasting, general, international interests, the Communist International mercilessly exposes all forms of the doctrine of 'class peace' that the reformists have accepted from the bourgeoise. Expressing the historical need for an international of revolutionary proletarians - the grave-diggers of the capitalist order - the Communist International is the only international force that has for its program the dictatorship of the proletariat and Communism, and that openly comes out as the organiser of the International Proletarian Revolution."
The foregoing is a brilliant outline of how the believers in dialectical materialism approach the task of advancing their program.
"The materialism of the last century was predominantly
mechanical . . . This exclusive application of the standards of mechanics
to processes of a chemical and organic nature in which process, it
is true, the laws of mechanics are also valid, but are pushed into
the background by other and higher laws - constitutes a specific
but at that time inevitable limitation . . . The second specific
limitation of this materialism lay in its inability to comprehend
the universe as a process - as matter developing in an historical
process. This was in accordance with the level of the natural science
of that time, and with the metaphysical, that is the anti-dialectical
manner of philosophising connected with it. Nature, it was known,
was in constant motion. But according to the ideas of that time,
this motion turned eternally in a circle and therefore never moved
from the spot: it produced the same result, over and over again.
This conception was at that time inevitable."
"This defect of the old materialism is undeniable:
its failure to appreciate the relativity of all scientific theories,
its ignorance of dialectics, its exaggeration of the mechanical viewpoint."
What Does "Dialectic" Mean?
The German philosopher Hegel took up this idea
of using dialectics and applied it to the field of ideas. He came
to the conclusion that dialectics always produces a much more developed
idea, with a greater content of truth. Hegel taught that the final
idea was only reached through three stages.
However, Communists do not like to face the
question of why, if they really believe in the "law" of dialectics,
they can accept the Communist State as the final stage of development
in society! Hegel was an idealist who believed that the Universe
was a manifestation of the Absolute Idea, that man was only a portion
of that Universe, and the idea in the mind of man would always be
only partially true.
In Ludwig Feuerbach (New York, 1934, pp. 53-54)
Engels summarised Hegel's views as follows:
Applying the Dialectic to Materialism Marx and Engels took a part of Hegel's idealism, his dialectics, and used it as a basis for their materialism. Prior to this time most philosophies of materialism doomed each individual to accept fate without any opportunity for individual influence. But now Hegel's dialectics provided materialism with an "energizing principle".
Marx and Engels turned Hegel's dialectic upside down, lifted it out of its philosophy of idealism, and made it the basis of a complete philosophical system of dialectical materialism. For Hegel, it was the idea that was composed of contradictory elements. But for Marx matter was composed of contradictory elements. Matter is self-sufficient; there is nothing beyond or external to matter. And its contradictory nature provides it with a motive force of development, a principle which disposes of the necessity of any Cause external to itself. This abolishes the concept of God.
The fusion of Marx's materialism with Hegel's
dialectic resulted in a result completely overlooked by most opponents
of Marxism: although Marx enunciated a deterministic and materialistic
philosophy, he and his followers produced dedicated individuals prepared
to devote their whole lives to make the inevitable come to pass.
A Communist may not know a great amount about economics - he may
not have even read one of Marx's books with the possible exception
of The Communist Manifesto - but he can be sustained by his deep
faith in the "historical inevitability" of Communism.
In his book, "How to be a Good Communist",
Lin Shaochi, the Chinese Marxist-Leninist theoretician, asks (p.
"Can Communist society be brought about? Our answer is yes. About this
the whole theory of Marxism-Leninism offers a scientific explanation
that leaves no room for doubt."
RELEVANT QUOTATIONS CONCERNING THE DIALECTIC
"In spite of all intermediate steps, the transition
from one form of motion to another always remains a leap, a decisive
"The bourgeois revolution limits itself to substituting
one group of exploiters for another in the seat of power, and therefore
has no need to destroy the old state machine; whereas the proletarian
revolution removes all groups of exploiters from power, and places
in power the leaders of all the toilers and exploited, the class
of proletarians, and therefore it cannot avoid destroying the old
state machine and replacing it by a new one."
In speaking of the Paris Commune, Marx claimed
that it was the failure of the proletariat to use ruthless force
and violence that robbed it of true victory: "Two errors robbed the
brilliant victory of its fruit. The proletariat stopped half-way;
instead of proceeding with the 'expropriation of the expropriators',
it was carried away with dreams of establishing supreme justice in
the country . . . The second error was unnecessary magnanimity of
the proletariat; instead of annihilating its enemies, it endeavoured
to exercise moral influence on them."
"The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot
come about as a result of the peaceful development of bourgeois society
and bourgeois democracy."
"The conquest of power by the proletariat does
not mean peacefully capturing the ready-made bourgeois state machinery
by means of a parliamentary majority. The bourgeoisie resorts to
every means of violence and terror to safeguard and strengthen its
predatory property and political domination . . . Hence, the violence
of the bourgeoisie can be suppressed only by the stern violence of
the proletariat. The conquest of power by the proletariat is the
violent overthrow of bourgeois power."
"What is the meaning of the impossibility of
the complete and final victory of socialism in a single country without
the victory of the revolution in other countries? It means the impossibility
of having full guarantees against intervention, and hence against
the restoration of the bourgeois order, without the victory of the
revolution in at least a number of countries. To deny this indisputable
fact is to abandon internationalism, to abandon Leninism."
"The victory of socialism in one country is
not an end in itself; it must be looked upon as a support, as a means
of hastening the proletarian victory in every other land. For the
victory of the revolution in one country (in Russia, for the nonce)
is not only the result of the unequal development and the progressive
decay of imperialism; it is likewise the beginning and the continuation
of the world revolution."
" . . . Social democracy has utterly and completely
betrayed Marxism, having traversed the road from revisionism to complete
liberal bourgeois reformism and avowed social-imperialism; it has
substituted in place of the Marxian theory of the contradiction of
capitalism, the bourgeois theory of its harmonious development; it
has pigeonholed the theory of crisis and of the pauperization of
the proletariat; it has turned the flaming and menacing theory of
class struggle into prosaic advocacy of class peace . . . in place
of the theory of the inevitability of war under capitalism it has
substituted the bourgeois deceit of pacifism . . . It has replaced
revolution by evolution, the destruction of the bourgeois State by
its active upbuilding . . . "
"With elemental force, imperialism exposes and
accentuates all the contradictions of capitalist society; it carries
class oppression to the utmost limits, intensifies the struggle between
capitalist governments, inevitably gives rise to world-wide imperialist
wars that shake the whole prevailing system of relationships to their
foundations and inexorably leads to the World Proletarian Revolution."
(Emphasis in original.)
"Capitalism is decaying, but it must not be
compared simply with a tree which has decayed to such an extent that
it must fall to the ground of its own accord. No, revolution, the
substitution of one social system for another, has always been a
struggle, a painful and cruel struggle, a life and death struggle,
and every time the people of the new world came into power they had
to defend themselves against the attempts of the old world to restore
the old order by force . . . The Communists regard the substitution
of one special system for another, not simply as a spontaneous and
peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process."
One of the "crimes" for which Lenin so bitterly
attacked Karl Kautsky, the leading Marxist theorist of the Second
International, was his insistence that it was possible to have a
peaceful transition from Capitalism to Socialism in England and America.
The Purpose of Violent Revolution " . . . That
force, however, plays another role (other than that of diabolical
power) in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx,
it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new
one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement
forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political
forms of this there is not a word in Herr Duhring. It is only with
sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps
be necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of exploitation
unfortunately, because all use of force, forsooth demoralises the
person who uses it. And this in spite of the immense moral and spiritual
impetus which has been given by every victorious revolution! And
this in Germany, where a violent collision - which indeed may be
forced on the people - would at least have the advantage of wiping
out the servility which has permeated the national consciousness
as a result of the humiliation of the Thirty Years' War. And this
parson's mode of though - lifeless, insipid and impotent - claims
the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history
In this book Lenin shows that the purpose of
revolution was not to seize control of the State, but to destroy
it. Most of the book deals with this thesis. "It will be noticed
how profoundly the Communist theory of violence is bound up with
its theory of historic evolution. It is not a justification of violence
as such. On the contrary, violence is regarded as a 'saeva necessitas' (a
cruel necessity), inevitable simply because the bourgeois State does
not surrender without giving battle.
"Communists never demean themselves to dissemble
their opinions and their aims. They openly proclaim that their ends
can be gained only by the violent subversion of the whole traditional
Natural philosophy is the basis of Marxism
In his funeral oration at Marx's grave, Engels said: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution of organic nature, so Marx discovered the evolutionary law of human history - the simple fact that . . . the production of the material necessities of life and the corresponding stage of economic evolution of a people or a period provides a foundation upon which the national institutions, legal systems, art, and even the religious ideals of the people in question have been built, and upon which, therefore, their explanation must be based."
Karl Kautsky, the German Socialist leader, said, "For Marx . . . the class struggle was but a particular emphasis of the universal law of evolution, whose essential qualities are in no way peaceful."
The American Socialist, Morris Hiliquit (Hilkowicz) writes in his Socialism in Theory and Practice: "Karl Marx alone consistently introduced the spirit of Darwinism into the study of social phenomena by substituting the doctrine of the class struggle in the more modern stages of social development for . . . the doctrine of the struggle for existence in the lower stages."
Hillquit continues by claiming that "in the ascending scale of organic existence the struggle between individuals of the same species gradually abates and is superseded by collective struggles of such individuals." Not only does the Marxist teaching, that progress comes only through the clash of opposites, apply to national groups; it means that clashes must take place between nations.
Irrespective of what Mr. Khrushchev may say
about "peaceful co-existence" between the Communist and non-Communist
nations, he knows as a Marxist-Leninist that to hold such a view
would be a major ideological heresy. Lenin put the truth as follows: "We
are living not merely in a State, but in a system of states, and
the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist
states for a long time is unthinkable. One or other must triumph
in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful
collisions between the Socialist Republic and the bourgeois states
will be inevitable."
Applying the Dialectic
Assignment in Utopia.
In spite of his great service to Communism, Bukharin was shot because he asked difficult questions which proved, according to Stalin, that he did not understand dialectics. Bukharin was concerned that the Communist theory about the development of the State in Russia after the revolution. It was not working out. There was no sign of the State starting to wither away. Bukharin claimed that it was growing stronger. But Stalin claimed that this fact was in reality dialectical proof that it was withering away! Contradictions are the essence of dialectics. Communists are taught to think dialectically, a fact beyond the comprehension of most people. Because Communists think dialectically, they do not advance directly towards any objective. They believe that progress is made through opposites - advance and retreat. One of the principal Communist textbooks is Lenin's One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. It is reported that in China school children are actually taught to do a dialectical march, taking three steps forward and two steps back.
Reverses Part of Advance
When Lenin introduced his NEP (New Economic Policy) early in the twenties, superficial observers claimed that by encouraging private enterprise in some sections of the Soviet economy, Lenin was retreating from Marxism. But Lenin was acting dialectically. Soviet doctrinaires have defended Lenin's NEP on the basis that it was the antithesis of early Bolshevism (the thesis) and that Stalinism was the synthesis of the two. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx taught of the necessity of abolishing marriage. But is family life being weakened in Soviet Russia? No. Exactly the opposite. Here again the superficial observer will claim that this is another retreat from Marxism, that Communism is becoming "different".
But the truth is that the Communists have found from experience that they have to develop a strong, patriotic basis to defeat their enemies. Strengthening family life helps strengthen the Soviet. This in turn helps the Soviet to conquer the world and to establish a Communist dictatorship. Steps can then be taken to "regenerate" mankind and to abolish the family. And so, dialectically, the Communist can argue that he is strengthening the family in order to destroy it!
Lenin said that "Atheism is a natural and inseparable
portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."
But religion in all countries conquered by the Communists has proved
a strong force and not easily eradicated. The Communists have therefore
decided to exploit this religious force in numerous ways. In China
they have actually encouraged the growth of a Church - but firmly under
Communist control. Visitors to Communist China see well-filled Churches
and hear sermons from well-paid ministers. Knowing nothing about Communist
dialectics, visitors to Communist China return home to report that
Christianity is actually flourishing and expanding in China. This is
then publicised as one more example of how Communism has become "different".
But the Communists have not ceased being anti-religion, particularly
Christianity. They have merely made one more dialectical move, helping
them to reach their ultimate objective, when with complete Communist
control of environment, religion can be abolished.
While most Western commentators eagerly grasp at all contradictions, either in practice, theory or words, in the Communist world, as evidence that Communism is either "collapsing" or "different", the Communist firmly believes them to be confirmation of his faith that progress is taking place through the "unity of opposites". A dedicated Communist may be said to suffer from a form of insanity in that the theoretical concepts he holds are a greater reality to him than the evidence of facts.
Dialectical materialism enables the Communist to murder, lie, betray, to claim that which was black yesterday is white today. But the Communist does not believe that he is murdering or lying or being treacherous. So long as he is advancing Communism he is in fact acting morally because to the Communist the only morality is that which advances Communism.
Morris Hiliquit, in his Socialism in Theory and Practice, writes: "All factors which impede the path of its (socialism's) approximate realisation are anti-ethical or unmoral; contrariwise, all factors or movements which tend in its direction are ethical."
Lenin put this question as follows: "The dictatorship
of the proletariat is nothing else than power based upon force and
limited by nothing - by no kind of law and by absolutely no rule."
(Complete Works, Vol. 18, p. 361.)
The faith of the Communist in the alleged revelations of Marxism-Leninism concerning the nature of man and reality, provides him with a dialectical flexibility which enables him to use any factor which will advance the Communist victory.
Lenin said that "Proletarian morality is determined by the exigencies of the class struggle." In other words, the dialectical tactics to be used at any moment depend upon the circumstances. The only absolute is the inevitability of the Communist victory.
One of the most significant novels to come out of the post-war period is When the Gods Are Silent. The book gives a moving account of the erosion of the faith of a dedicated Marxist. The hero at first tried to convince others: "We must smash the past that is part of us and everything around us. That's harsh . . . but we do it in the name of the future . . . You can't chop wood without making splinters . . . History will understand us, and it will not condemn us because of the splinters we are making in our great work of construction."
In face of the terrible realisation that "all blood was shed in vain", the hero clings desperately to the dialectics of freedom-through-slavery: "We shall come to power over the system through subjection to the system. That one simply must believe, and never dare to doubt." (p. 183) . To a "real Stalinist the groans of human beings . . . are his 'symphony of construction,'" (p. 177), because "without violence you can't open the door into the future." (p. 199).
A study of the history of Marxism reveals that while Marx and Engels introduced a powerful force when they claimed that their "science" proved that the victory of socialism (later called Communism) was a certainty, and that "economic determinism" was excellent for propaganda purposes, more than this was required for the actual reaching of the objective.
And clearly Marx and Engels saw that there was one fatal flaw in their "science"- one which still exists today: If historical materialism makes it inevitable that "capitalism" is destroyed and replaced by socialism, then surely the same laws which removed "capitalism" must also remove socialism (Communism)?
Marx and Engels attempted to solve this problem by advancing the necessity for human political action. This duality in the Marxist movement (economic and determinist versus political and voluntarist) continued until Lenin's contribution. Because Lenin saw the vital importance of "science" - historical inevitability" - he maintained it as a vital element in Communist strategy. But the emphasis by Lenin was on the necessity for political action and organisation.
In his Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Stalin explained why before Marx mankind, not knowing the laws governing its own life, could never take its fate into its own hands. But once known, the laws become the servant of man. And then, most astonishing, since the Communists discovered these laws, they serve communists and communist power!
Both the theory of historical materialism and
the law of dialectics have become instruments to achieve political
power. Dialectics have become a major and magic weapon. Marxian dialectics
have to defend "the power of the working class" i.e. the Communist
Party. Dialectics are used to prove that all enemies of the Communist
Party are wrong, morally corrupt and politically reactionary. Communist
mistakes, inconsistencies and deviations are all "explained" away
Felix Dzerzhinsky, the first chief of the Soviet
Secret police, the Cheka, gave a fantastic (to the non-Communist)
comment on the question: "One must have the inner consciousness of
the necessity to meet death for the sake of life, to go into slavery
for the sake of freedom, and have the strength to survive the whole
hell of life with open eyes, feeling in your heart the great sublime
hymn of beauty, truth and happiness wrung from it."
To Peace - Through War!
The Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung,
put it much more clearly: "We are for the abolition of wars. War,
we don't need it. But war can only be abolished through war. Thus,
if you want to do away with rifles, grab your rifle."
Communists claim to be for the independence
and self-determination of people. But what is the dialectical answer
when it is pointed out that the Communists do not practise what they
Everything must be viewed and assessed from
the "viewpoint of the interests of the revolutionary struggle". Freedom,
independence and self-determination is recognized only when it serves
the interests of the Communist revolution and the consolidation of
Although the question of colonies has been regarded
by the Communists as a special aspect of the national problem, it
demands particular attention - particularly at the present time.
Stalin claimed that the following is the correct formulation of the
problem: Can the revolutionary possibilities inherent in the revolutionary
"liberation" movements of oppressed countries" - colonies and dependent
countries" - be used to help overthrow imperialism and to further the
While "capitalism" exists, Communists must continue
to proclaim the right of secession of the colonies, but this is only
for the purpose of breaking up "imperialist unity". In Communist
dialectics, separation and fusion, or unification, of colonies are
not two different concepts.
Colonies must be free - from "capitalism" - but "united" -under Communism! This is the essence of Communist dialectics on the question of colonies and "oppressed" countries.
"Democracy" is one of the words used ad nauseum
by the Communists. This does not mean free elections. In his Foundations
of Leninism (p. 43) Stalin quotes Lenin's view in The State and
Revolution, that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is the
rule - unrestricted by law and based . . " on force of the proletariat
over the bourgeoisie . . . and states that the first conclusion to
be drawn from this is that "The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot
be complete" - democracy, democracy for all, for the rich as
well as for the poor; the dictatorship of the proletariat , " must
be a state that is democratic in a new way . . . .
When the Communists seize power, "the people"
only must get freedom. Who are "the people"? Those who are for Communism.
Those against Communism are the "reactionaries" and therefore are not
entitled to freedom. Mao Tse-tung, accepted by all Communists as a
brilliant Marxist-Leninist theoretician, deals with this question in
his work on People's Democratic Dictatorship.
This astonishing dialectical answer by the Chinese
Communist leader concerning democracy, has, however, been bettered
in the following example given by the former Tito supporter, Djilas
(now generally, but wrongly, accepted as an anti- Marxist):
A final classic is provided by Stalin in his Foundations of Leninism. According to the Marxian theory of the State, it is not representative of all sections, but is an instrument of oppression by the '"ruling class". Marxists are therefore against the State. It will "wither away". But when the Communists seize power, the State becomes stronger. All non-Communists will immediately say, "The Communists are hypocrites and contradict themselves". But they know nothing about dialectical thinking!
Let Stalin explain: ""We are for the withering away of the State. And yet we also believe in the proletarian dictatorship which represents the strongest and mightiest form of state power that has existed up to now. To keep on developing state power in order to prepare the conditions for the withering away of state power - that is the Marxist formula. Is it 'contradictory'? Yes, 'contradictory'. But the contradiction is vital, and wholly reflects the Marxist dialectic . . . Whoever has not understood this feature of the contradictions belonging to our transitional time, whoever has not understood this dialectic of historical processes, that person is dead to Marxism." (Emphasis added.)
DIALECTICS AND COMMUNIST SEMANTICS
Every act which advances this truth therefore must be right. For example, the Communists believe that certain classes in the community must be killed when the Communists obtain power. This, to the Communist, is not murder. Murder is a bourgeois term which means killing individuals for bad reasons. Killing Communists is murder. But killing classes of people to advance Communism is not murder; it is a moral act. Lying is not lying if it advances Communism. The ultimate truth is the will of the Communist Party, which history has made necessary. Because the end creates the means, all killing and brutality is peaceful if it advances the Communist conquest.
Lenin said that "Proletarian morality is determined by the exigencies of the class struggle." Now it will be pointed out in opposition to this, that the Communists are for ever talking about the desirability of peace. How can peace and conflict be reconciled? Easily, in Communist dialectics. The Communists accept class warfare as a basic law of historical development, but they also believe that the historical synthesis of this basic law is the peace which will follow the Communist victory over the whole world. Even war is, therefore, part of a peaceful process - in Communist dialectics and semantics!
Words become weapons to the Communist. Because his basic philosophy provides him with complete freedom of movement, he can even support at the same time two conflicting opposites - providing that this will advance Communism: "the will of history". All agreements are regarded from one viewpoint only: will they advance Communism? To the complete Marxist-Leninist, every question must be answered against the background of whether or not it will advance Communism.
The Communist mind is not immoral, but amoral.
If it were immoral, there would be a starting point to reach it.
But a mind which not only rejects all concepts of fixed moral precepts,
but which can make anything moral which advances the Marxist "'revelation",
cannot be reached within the thought-forms of the West. Most discussion,
"Summit Talks", etc., are therefore not only a waste of time, but further
the dangerous delusion that it is possible to reason with the Communists.
The only starting point for realistic talks would be an attack upon
the basis Communist philosophy of dialectical materialism. But there
does not appear to be one Western leader capable of doing this. Rather
do they reflect the general ignorance of the problem confronting the
West by clinging to the hope that if the West can at least maintain
its military defences, Communism will become "different".
What "Peaceful Co-existence" Means
Communist dialectics justify the use of '"peaceful
coexistence" as a very necessary tactical move. Lenin used it to
co-exist with other groups until he had used them, and could then
destroy them. Stalin used it when, rejecting Trotsky's doctrine of
immediate world-wide revolutionary activities, he decided to co-exist
with the non-Communists until he had first strengthened the base
of World Revolution. The Popular Front Movements of the thirties
came out of the teaching of
The Soviet Diplomatic Dictionary (quoted in
Double Talk by Hodgkinson, p. 26) makes it clear that co-existence
was not chosen by the Communists, but was forced upon them by events,
and is not to be regarded as a permanent state of affairs: "'Lenin
and Stalin, in their theoretical inquiries and in their practical
work as leaders of the Soviet Socialist State, set out from an acceptance
of the principle of the inescapable temporary co-existence of the
two systems - the capitalist and the socialist." Communist "co-existence"
with the non-Communist world is in fact but part of Communism's total
program of conquest.
In Communist semantics, "'co-existence" means that the non-Communists will depart from the world stage without a struggle. It is true that the West has "co-existed" with the Communists for over 40 years. But during this period the Communists have increased their control of the world's population from approximately 150 millions to approximately 1000 millions - one-third of the world's total population. Another decade of "co-existence" could be the end for the West.
DIALECTICS WITHIN THE COMMUNIST WORLD
The Stalin-Trotsky Clash
Although Trotsky called the Soviet "'the most inquisitorial system of all time," nevertheless he said that he preferred it to democracy. The Soviet Union "represents a tremendous step forward in the development of mankind" and every Communist has "'the absolute duty . . . to defend the U.S.S.R. against imperialism despite the Soviet bureaucracy".
So far from the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky weakening Marxism-Leninism, it did the very opposite. And thus provided the dialectical materialists with convincing evidence that greater strength was to be obtained by the application of the dialectic - "'self-criticism" being an essential feature.
The story of Tito's valuable contribution to the advancement of Marxism-Leninism from the time he broke with Stalin in 1948 until the present, is a fascinating and frightening example of the Marxist dialecticians working out their own internal differences about correct tactics while at the same time consistently fooling the non-Communists.
Time and time again Tito made it clear that he was a loyal Marxist-Leninist. He believed in dialectical materialism and the "historical inevitability" of Communism. He and his colleagues openly proclaimed that their difference of opinion with Moscow was not about the right of Yugoslavia to "independent development," but about the best way to promote Communism in the world. Even if Stalin had not intended it, his expulsion of Tito and the world-wide propaganda to present Tito as a '"different kind" of Communist, paid enormous dividends to the Communist camp. He was wildly eulogised in the West by all the ""eminent commentators", and soon was obtaining a steady flow of dollar assistance.
Typical of the gullible comments was the following from an editorial in New York Herald Tribune of August 28, 1951: "'Our dislike for Communism, be it Stalinist or Titoist, need not blind us to the fact that Tito's thirty-two divisions form the outer armour of the West's Mediterranean defences and that, if they go down, the Kremlin would be well on its way toward conquering Western Europe."
The carefully-fostered view was that in order to save itself, the West had to save Tito. And Tito, a man trained from his youth in Communist dialectics and semantics, played up to the widely-propagated view that he was doing tremendous harm to the Communist bloc - whereas in fact he was advancing the strategy of International Communism. Tito worked numerous successful hoaxes on the West concerning the "liberalisation" of his regime. Speaking to the students of a partisan high school in June, 1950, Tito dealt with the question of the essence of the "'Tremendous difference between Communism as practised in Russia and Yugoslavia." Tito said, "Our party must avoid becoming . . . bureaucratic, as in the case with the All-Union Communist Party (bolshevik) . Our party must . . . control the state apparatus, it must direct all fields of activity in our country - but it must not become bureaucratic." Now Tito's advice to Yugoslav Communists to practice bureaucratism without becoming bureaucratic was not a cynical joke. It was the logical application of the law of dialectics to the bureaucratic situation in Yugoslavia. The state must wither and it is withering, but only dialectically through first making the state stronger!
Not knowing anything about Communist dialectics, Western "experts" continued to swallow Titoism uncritically. We have already quoted Tito's famous remarks concerning the 1950 Yugoslavian "elections." But these "elections" were quoted in the West as further evidence that Tito was moving further away from Moscow. Although Tito's voting in the United Nations has been 100 per cent for all Soviet policies, and although he has continued to make it clear that he was working for a Communist world - by "different" methods, of course! - his few verbal criticisms of Moscow have been sufficient to keep the flow of dollars coming. This has enabled him to strengthen his armed forces and to gain a tighter grip on the nation.
To counteract American critics of American support for his regime, Tito started a campaign of counter-propaganda, the essence of which was: By supporting Tito, Washington was strengthening the West against potential Soviet aggression. Americans criticising help for Tito were weakening their Government in its efforts to strengthen the West. They were therefore "unpatriotic.'' Here were Communist dialectics at their best. Support for Communist Tito was a gauge of an American citizen's patriotism!
By 1955, after Tito's successful missions to Asia, where he persuaded the Asians that Stalin's successors were, like himself, '"different" Communists, it was clear to the Moscow Communists that Tito was making a tremendous contribution towards the advancement of Communist victory. Tito was continually proclaiming for the benefit of the West that a "new era" had been introduced in Russia following Stalin's death. The visit to Tito of Bulganin and Khrushchev in 1955 produced some fantastic comment in the Western press. Tito had '"humbled" the mighty Soviet.
One report said that Tito had agreed to normalize his relations with the Soviet because he was "convinced the Russians have dropped their plans for world domination." This report must have created hilarious comment amongst the Marxist-Leninists. Tito continued to make it clear that he was still working for a Communist world. And the U.S.A. continued to supply him with dollars - to enable him to continue with his "different" Communism.
Khrushchev's Dialectical Retreat
Khrushchev's campaign for "peaceful co-existence" received a severe set back with the Hungarian uprising of 1956. He then had to act in true Stalinist style. And, most significant, Tito supported Khrushchev. This was in accordance with Communist dialectics: It is "immoral" for Communists to relinquish power once they have obtained it. But still the West persisted in believing that Communism could be defeated, not by attacking the very foundations of Communism, but by assisting "different" Communists. While it is probably true, as all competent authorities on Communism agree, that originally Stalin's clash with Tito was the result of the new historical situation following the unprecedented expansion of Communist power after the war, both Moscow and Tito soon realised that, providing the West did not attempt to exploit their differences, they could work dialectically to use these differences to advance their common objective: Communism.
Once the Western peoples started to recover from the honeymoon of "co-existence" with Communism during the war, Stalin's methods produced a definite reaction. "Stalinism" was making it clear that Communism was bad. This meant a life and death fight for the West, because there was no other alternative. But the arrival of Tito introduced a new factor. The West was confused into seeing Tito's Communism as an alternative to Stalin's Communism. This has had a serious effect on the West's will to fight and win.
All Communists believe in the inevitability of complete Communist victory. That victory can be hastened if they can persuade their opponents that some Communists are "different" from others and should therefore be supported. The policy of helping the "different" Communists (in Poland, too) certainly contains no message of hope to the world about the possible destruction of Communism. It contains the opposite message: that it takes a Communist to fight a Communist, that the only way to defeat Communism is to support Communism. In fact that there is no alternative to Communism in the world.
Separate Roads to Socialism
Then followed a great deal of coming and going by Communist leaders everywhere, both in the Communist bloc and in the non-Communist world. Communism was becoming "different" with a vengeance. The West was delighted with the "change." Communism was becoming more "democratic!" Attacks on "Stalinists" were featured. But it was necessary to be careful. After all, both Krushchev and Tito had been Stalin's associates.
Tito urged moderation in the new '"self-criticism",
pretending that it could lead to the defeat of Khrushchev and "would
strengthen the Stalinist opposition". And as a good Communist dialectician,
Tito complained about the use of the term satellites. "Why do you
always call them satellites . . . We saw here in Rumania that the
Rumanians are self-ruling people."
Tito's campaign for anti-Moscow independence of the satellites was clearly dialectic. European Communists were to attack the Soviet only within the limits of Soviet permission. This tactic was probably decided in Moscow. Proof of this was provided in Poland following the demonstration of workers at Pozan, who, encouraged by anti-Stalinist and Titoist propaganda, demanded both bread and freedom. Although Soviet tanks were immediately used to deal with the uprising, this appeared to make no impression on gullible Western commentators who persisted in believing that "liberalising" forces were at work.
Gomulka, the alleged Titoist purged from the Polish Communist Party in 1949, was brought to power. Some quite fantastic stories, now known to be completely false, were fed out to the West of how Gomulka was standing up to Moscow. No sooner had Gomulka been installed - but still surrounded by the very men appointed by Stalin - in Poland than he said that it would be "naive" to think that Poland "was leaning away from Russia towards the West."
He told President Eisenhower that Poland's
"'new freedom" did not give America the right to interfere in Poland's
internal affairs. There was no fear of this. The American policy makers
were so convinced that the "new freedom" mentioned by Gomulka was the
same type of freedom they had in mind, that they lost no time in recommending
that Gomulka, like Tito, should also receive a liberal flow of dollar
Western victims of Communist propaganda have
made much of how Gomulka stood up to Moscow on the question of Soviet
troops being withdrawn. The fact is that when Gomulka visited Moscow
after being reinstated, he assured the Soviet leaders that there
could be no talk of Poland leaving the Warsaw Pact. This Pact legalised
Soviet troops in Poland, where they have stayed. But the Soviet-Polish
pact declared that it was establishing "complete equality" between
Poland and the Soviet.
But students of Communism know that the theoretical justification for "different roads" to Socialism is to be found in Lenin and Stalin. In Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, Stalin enthusiastically advocated Communist equality, sovereignty and national independence.
Having taken one step backwards when they withdrew from Hungary, the Soviet leaders quickly realised that the West was not acting, and so they took two brutal dialectical steps forward with Mongolian troops. They then installed their man Kadar in power.
To fit in with the dialectical play, Kadar then
obediently breathed anti-Soviet defiance! He proclaimed Point 1 of
his 15 point program: "Unconditional insurance of the national independence
and sovereignty of our country". His Soviet masters helped him to
broadcast his proclamation!
Tito said shortly afterwards that in his opinion the new Communist leaders in Hungary "represent that which is most honest in Hungary".
Tito said that he was against Soviet military intervention, but as against that there was chaos, civil war and counter-revolution in Hungary. "And, of course, if (intervention) saves Socialism in Hungary, then we shall be able, comrades, to say that, although we are against intervention, the Soviet intervention was necessary."
Surely this statement by Tito establishes him as an absolute master of Communist dialectics? And if having hailed Khrushchev, following the brutal massacres of Budapest, as a democratic, anti-Stalinist Communist, Tito can still be claimed in the West as a courageous adversary of Moscow, and worthy of more dollar and military assistance, then the Communist leaders must be convinced that the strategy of "different", '"independent", ''national'' Communism works miracles.
After the history of the Moscow-Belgrade strategy, it would be reasonable to hope that Western political leaders should be more careful about the Moscow-Peking "split".
But already the "line" is emerging that Khrushchev is the "moderate" and must be supported as a counter to the Peking "Stalinists". When the harsh exchanges between Tito and Moscow are recalled, it is ironical that Tito, is now solidly supporting Khrushchev. Whether or not the verbal controversies between the Chinese Communists, Moscow and most other Western Communist groups are genuine or a deliberately planned dialectical move, it is paying big dividends to the Communists.
The Chinese Communists have nothing to learn about the use of dialectics from Moscow. This fact increases the significance of the following statement by the People's Daily, the Chinese Communist paper, as quoted in The Sun, Melbourne, on January 1, 1963: "We have never considered that it was a Marxist-Leninist attitude to brandish nuclear weapons as a way of settling international disputes. What we did strongly oppose, still strongly oppose and will strongly oppose in the future is the sacrifice of another country's sovereignty as a means of reaching a compromise with imperialism . . . A compromise of this sort has nothing in common with the policy of peaceful co-existence of the socialist countries.
That Cuban "Retreat"
In exchange for carting away nuclear weapons which he had no intention of using, Khrushchev obtained from Kennedy a promise not to invade Castro's Cuba. Castro has since openly paraded some of the extensive military equipment he has been given by the Soviet, and taunted the Americans with having been forced to pay an indemnity to Socialist Cuba to get back to the U.S.A. those who participated in the abortive Bay of Pigs incident.
The readiness of Mr. Khrushchev to take away his nuclear weapons (if he did- some have doubts about this in the absence of direct inspection) has been widely commented on to prove that he is one of the ""reasonable" Communist leaders! Whatever the reason for the Chinese Communists' military aggression against "neutralist" India, and the sudden withdrawal when the Chinese were carrying all before them, this incident has been paraded as still further evidence of the "moderation" of the Soviet leaders compared with the "Stalinist" Chinese.
The fact that Khrushchev can be successfully presented to the world as an "anti-Stalinist", a "moderate" Communist who genuinely believes in "peaceful co-existence", and who must therefore be supported against Peking, is overwhelming proof of the success of Communist dialectics.
Khrushchev's retreat has been so well presented that comparatively few remember that it was Stalin himself, at the 19th Congress of the Communist Party held in Moscow in 1953, who altered the doctrine of inevitable military conflict between the Communists and non-Communists, to the doctrine of conquest through "peaceful co-existence". Stalin was convinced that the non-Communists would surrender more quickly under this doctrine, made necessary because of the danger of nuclear war.
A Great Stalinist
This statement recalls the comment by the Melbourne
Communist journal, The Guardian, concerning the Moscow-Peking
"split", which said that the difference of opinion was only about the
funeral arrangements for the West.
It is clear, therefore, that irrespective of whether the verbal duels between Moscow and Peking are genuine or not, they are making a major contribution to the general Communist advance. Trained Communists right around the world understand the true nature of the Moscow-Peking differences. And while deluded non-Communists may attempt to console themselves that there is a real split, the Communists note with satisfaction that Khrushchev, the "anti-Stalinist" has promised Mao Tse-tung that any attack on Communist China will immediately bring the full might of the Soviet to China's defence.
It is the Moscow-Tito "split" all over again.
During that "split" Khrushchev warned the West that differences between
Tito and Moscow were "internal" matters to be settled between the
Communists themselves. And these differences were settled most satisfactorily
- for the Communists!
Unless there is a major change in Western outlook and understanding, there is no fear of this.
No Compromise Possible
As the Empire expands, it is certain that internal tensions and frictions will increase. Friction and tensions in the Communist bloc would, of course, help the West if the West made up its mind that there can be no compromise with Communism, whatever brand it may be.
The West must develop the will to win. And as an essential part of its program for victory, it must ensure that sufficient people, particularly leaders, understand the real nature of Communism. With that understanding, it would be possible to tear to tatters all Communist theories, and to offer hope to the peoples suffering under Communism. These people are not impressed with Communist dialectics; they know Communist reality.
When Western leaders take the trouble to see through the Communists' dialectical trickery, they will also act from a basis of reality. And, contrary to the philosophy of dialectical materialism, reality is far more than the mere sum total of material factors. It is this reality which provides hope for Civilization.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|